JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu)

The present writ appeal is directed against the order dated

29.06.2010 in W.P.No.5326 of 2005, passed by a learned single Judge holding that the order of modification passed by the Second Appellate Authority in proceedings arising under A.P.Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, while entirely confirming the findings of the first appellate authority in reinstating the 1st respondent herein to her service, is without any justification.

2. The facts in brief are that the 1st respondent joined as sweeper in the theatre of the appellants in November, 1997 and continued to discharge her duties. On 16.01.2002 she absented herself from duty owing to her personal work having duly informed the management of the theatre. While she returned to report for duty on 17.01.2002, she was not allowed to discharge her duties and was told by the Manager that her services were terminated. Initially when she complained to the Assistant Labour Officer concerned, perhaps to ward off further action, the appellant Management agreed to take her back, but it did not keep its word. Left with no other alternative, the 1st respondent filed an application before the 3rd respondent herein, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kharimnagar, invoking Section 48 of the A.P.Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for brevity), which eventually came to be allowed after an elaborate enquiry. In fact, the 3rd respondent set aside the so-called order of termination, and directed the 1st respondent’s reinstatement with continuity of service along with all attendant benefits including the back wages, through an Order, dt.19.06.2003 in Case No.APSE 2/2002

3. Aggrieved thereby, the theatre management, the appellants, filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Warangal, by invoking Section 48(3) of the Act, 1988, assailing the order of the 3rd respondent. Eventually, the said appeal was disposed of on 14.08.2004. Though the Second Appellate Authority agreed entirely with the findings of the First Appellate Authority and did not find any infirmity in the order assailed, yet he held that the relations between the employer and the employee were strained and that the reinstatement would not serve any purpose. Accordingly, he modified the order of the First Appellate Authority by ordering the appellant management to pay compensation to the 1st respondent to a tune of Rs.37,582/- in lieu of reinstatement.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the second appellate authority, dated 14.08.2004, the 1st respondent herein filed W.P.No.5326 of 2005 before this Court. In course of time, a learned Single Judge, after appreciating the entire material on record, including the orders passed by the statutory authorities under the Act of 1988, allowed the writ petition holding that once the second appellate authority has confirmed the findings of the first appellate authority, unless there were compelling reasons, the order of reinstatement ought not to have been interfered with, and accordingly restored the order of the First Appellate Authority.

5. Under the above factual backdrop, the appellants 1 and 2, being the management of the theatre, filed the present Writ Appeal, assailing the order dated 29.06.2010 in W.P.No.5326 of 2005 of the learned Single Judge. The appellant management has contended that the writ petition was allowed on a mere technicality by finding fault with the order of the Second Appellate Authority, but without discussing the issue on merits. It is contended that the management followed the principles of natural justice, put the 1st respondent on notice, conducted a disciplinary enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer, who is disinterested, and eventually passed orders of removal from service based on the report submitted by the said enquiry officer. The theatre management has also further pleaded that had there been any infirmity in the order of the appellate authority, after setting it a